Recent Canadian Plastic Surgery Graduates: Are They Prepared for the Real World?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the correlation between plastic surgery education received through residency in Canadian programs and perceived preparedness for independent clinical practice among recently graduated plastic surgeons. METHODS: All practicing plastic surgeons having graduated from a Canadian program between 1996 and 2006 were surveyed. An itemized Web-based questionnaire was designed and distributed by e-mail with the assistance of all program directors. RESULTS: Eighty (52 percent) of the 155 recent graduates from Canadian plastic surgery programs with valid contact information responded to the survey. The majority of respondents were satisfied with most aspects of their training. Only 22 percent of respondents had done part of their training in a foreign center, but all of them agreed that it was beneficial to their training. Clinical research was encouraged in 92 percent of the respondents' programs, but dedicated time was only allocated in 29 percent of these. At the beginning of their practice, the majority of respondents felt comfortable or very comfortable in all subspecialties with the exception of pediatric plastic surgery and ancillary procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' results describe the tendencies in type and duration of the training that Canadian graduates had over the last 10 years. The majority of respondents were satisfied with most aspects of their residency programs and felt comfortable practicing different subspecialties early in their careers. Expectations during residency and the resources made available to meet these expectations are also revealed. This study will help improve residency programs by identifying existing gaps in the preparedness of surgeons.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".